Ex Parte Yoshida et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 7, 2012

11516787 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/516,787 09/07/2006 Shoji Yoshida FUJ-035 9277
32628 7590 08/07/2012
KANESAKA BERNER AND PARTNERS LLP
1700 DIAGONAL RD
SUITE 310
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2848
EXAMINER
FISHMAN, MARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2833
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/07/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHOJI YOSHIDA, NOBUYUKI ODAKA,
and MASAYUKI FURUSAWA
____________

Appeal 2010-004052
Application 11/516,787
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004052
Application 11/516,787

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 23-25 (App. Br. 2). Claims 1-22 were cancelled (Id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 23 follows:
23. A vacuum valve comprising a hermetically sealed vessel
accommodating a fixed contact piece and a movable contact piece, the
hermetically sealed vessel comprising

a cover as a first structural member having a metal plating thereon for
covering the same, said cover being formed separately from the moveable
contact piece and attached thereto,

a bellows substantially free of metal plating, and

a second structural member having a metal plating thereon,

wherein the first structural member is interposed between the movable
contact piece and the bellows and is soldered with one end portion of the
bellows, and the other end portion of the bellows is soldered with the second
structural member, and wherein a solder for connecting the bellows includes
a solder fillet formed at a side of the bellows of a soldered portion between
the bellows and the cover, and another solder fillet formed at a side of the
bellows of a soldered portion between the bellows and the second structural
member.

The Examiner rejected claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanimizu (U.S. 5,594,224) and Warabi (U.S. 4,394,554)
(Ans. 3-5).

Appeal 2010-004052
Application 11/516,787

3
ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Tanimizu and
Warabi teaches or suggests a cover as a first structural member “being
formed separately from the movable contact piece attached thereto,” and that
“a solder for connecting the bellows includes a solder fillet formed at a side
of the bellows of a soldered portion between the bellows and the cover, and
another solder fillet formed at a side of the bellows of a soldered portion
between the bellows and the second structural member,” as recited in
independent claim 23 and as similarly recite in independent claim 24?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ assertions set forth in Appellants’
Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-11) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-4) regarding the
Examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-13) in response to arguments made by
Appellants. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We
highlight and address certain findings and arguments below.
Appeal 2010-004052
Application 11/516,787

4
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that
independent claim 23 is obvious because Tanimizu does not teach “that said
cover is formed separately from the movable contact piece and attached
thereto” (App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted)). In support of their contention,
Appellants argue that “the element which is being taken as the cover (viz.,
5A) is and never can be connected to the movable contact [4] because it
forms part of the movable conductor [5] which is in turn connected to the
movable contact [4]” (Id.). The Examiner found, however, that Figure 1 of
Tanimizu shows that “[t]he cover [5A] and the movable contact piece [4] are
formed separately and are attached through a portion of movable conductor
[5]” (Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner. Tanimizu shows a cover [5A]
that is indirectly connected through a portion of the movable conductor to
the movable contact piece [4] (Tanimizu FIG. 1). That showing is sufficient
to meet the claim limitation in dispute because, as noted by the Examiner,
“[t]he claim does not require the movable contact to be attached directly to
the cover” (Ans. 5).
Appellants further contend that claim 23 is not obvious because the
combination of Tanimizu and Warabi does not teach one solder fillet formed
at a side of the bellows and the cover, and another solder fillet formed at a
side of the bellows and a second structural member (App. Br. 5). In support
of their contention, Appellants argue that “[n]owhere does Tanimizu
disclose fillets formed at both sides of the bellows for soldering the bellows
to the cover and the second structural member” (Id.). Appellants also argue
that Tanimizu and Warabi do not teach the claimed solder and instead, teach
brazing. The Examiner found, however, that “soldering and brazing are
interchangeably used terms for the same process” (Ans. 6). The Examiner
Appeal 2010-004052
Application 11/516,787

5
also found that Tanimizu teaches solder fillets formed between the bellows
and cover, and between the bellows and a second structural member (Id.).
We agree with the Examiner. First, as noted by the Examiner, “[t]he
dictionary definition of hard solder according to Webster is ‘solder that
contains copper; melts at a relatively high temperature; used for brazing’”
(Id.). Thus, the brazing that is taught by Tanimizu and Warabi is a form of
soldering. Second, Tanimizu shows that a side of one end of the bellows is
soldered to the cover 5A at an area identified as 6A and a side of the other
end of the bellows is soldered to a second structural member 7 at an area
identified as 6B (FIG. 1). For these reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Tanimizu and Warabi render
claim 23 obvious.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in finding claim 24
obvious (App. Br. 7-9). In support of their contention, Appellants argue, as
they did for claim 23, that Tanimizu and Warabi teach brazing instead of the
claimed soldering (Id. at 8-9). Appellants also argue that “there is no
specific disclosure of metal migration or intermingling even under brazing
conditions anywhere in the Tanimizu reference” (Id. at 9). As explained
supra, however, the brazing that is taught by Tanimizu and Warabi is a form
of soldering called hard soldering.
Moreover, the Examiner found that in light of Tanimizu’s teachings, it
would have been obvious to put nickel plating on the cover and end plate
and that “[w]hen the cover with nickel plating is joined to the bellows, the
nickel would migrate from the nickel plating to the cover into the solder, and
in the same manner, when the end plate with nickel plating is joined to the
bellows, the nickel from the nickel plating would migrate to the end plate”
Appeal 2010-004052
Application 11/516,787

6
(Ans. 7). We agree with the Examiner. Tanimizu teaches “nickel plating
the wide area of the movable conductor 5 from the movable conductor side
electrical contacting face 5E to the metallic bellows joint portion 5B” (col. 9,
ll. 54-57). Tanimizu also teaches that “the nickel plating shows a good
wettability with the brazing materials” (col. 11, ll. 17-18). Accordingly, it
would have been obvious to also nickel plate the end plate in order to
achieve good wettability at the end plate. In addition, the migration of
nickel “would inherently occur during the heating of the cover and the
bellows along with soldering material, and during the heating of the end
plate with bellows with soldering material” (Ans. 7). Accordingly, we find
no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 24 and claim 25
dependent therefrom because Appellants did not set forth any separate
patentability arguments for claim 25 (See App. Br. 10).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23-25 as obvious.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc